 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.jconline.com/article/20090708/NEWS09/90708007
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.jconline.com/article/20090708/NEWS09/90708007
No, actually not. The Internet (the master source of information - the
one that's never wrong) told me that the Chrome OS will just be another
desktop environment for Linux. Which is reasonable, it's probably pretty
much easier than carving the whole OS from wood and they'll get theier
part of OS-markets pretty much faster. But they should call it Linux if
they really base it on Linux (due to the license Linux is using - AFAIK
license is one of the main reasons OSX is based of FreeBSD).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://www.jconline.com/article/20090708/NEWS09/90708007
>
> No, actually not.
...which is kind of my point. ;-)
> The Internet (the master source of information - the
> one that's never wrong) told me that the Chrome OS will just be another
> desktop environment for Linux.
The article above states the same thing.
> Which is reasonable, it's probably pretty
> much easier than carving the whole OS from wood and they'll get theier
> part of OS-markets pretty much faster. But they should call it Linux if
> they really base it on Linux (due to the license Linux is using - AFAIK
> license is one of the main reasons OSX is based of FreeBSD).
Indeed. Google aren't the sort of people you'd think of doing a real OS.
From what the article says, this is a trivial Linux front-end. (Indeed,
I suspect it's probably going to consist of little beyond an ordinary
Linux distro with Chrome instead of a real desktop manager.)
The article states "Google is going for Microsoft's financial jugular
with this move". Erm, no, not really, no. This is aimed at netbooks; why
would M$ care about that? It's not where they make their money. Perhaps
it's where they might *like* to make money some day, but currently every
single netbook I've seen is running Linux anyway. (Unsurprising, given
that the whole point of a netbook is to be as cheap and nasty as
possible, and Linux is free...)
Looks to me like an excuse for somebody to write a news article. It *is*
a slightly odd more for Google though... [Hey, I guess they know a thing
or two about usability?]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> much easier than carving the whole OS from wood
... which Microsoft is already doing in their own project for low-cost
computers ...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Indeed. Google aren't the sort of people you'd think of doing a real OS.
> From what the article says, this is a trivial Linux front-end. (Indeed,
> I suspect it's probably going to consist of little beyond an ordinary
> Linux distro with Chrome instead of a real desktop manager.)
It's actually even more limited than their Android OS, because it won't
support Java (just Javascript via the Chrome browser). Not to mention,
it won't come with either KDE or Gnome, so there goes most of the Linux
software right off the bat.
Not to mention, they'll do everything possible (from what I've read) to
keep you from running any real applications other than the Chrome browser.
It's an extremely specific OS, with one purpose only, and as such it
will only be usable on Netbooks.
> This is aimed at netbooks; why
> would M$ care about that? It's not where they make their money.
MS is, I believe, selling XP licences for Netbooks for quite cheap.
However, that's only a stopgap measure until W7 is released.
> Looks to me like an excuse for somebody to write a news article. It *is*
> a slightly odd more for Google though... [Hey, I guess they know a thing
> or two about usability?]
So was releasing the Android OS, or the Chrome browser. If you look at
what they're doing, though, they're slowly taking over every part of
your life.
First, they managed search for you. Then, it was email. Then driving
directions. Then documents. Then calendars and schedules. Then chat.
Now, with the Chrome browser, they handle your online interactions (I
use it and, apart from a few minor squibbles, I quite like it). With
the Chrome OS, they'll completely control your computer.
Google: Microsoft Done Right (tm).
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not to mention, they'll do everything possible (from what I've read) to
> keep you from running any real applications other than the Chrome browser.
...
> Google: Microsoft Done Right (tm).
Hmm, so company A includes its browser in its OS and gets fined and told to
remove it. Company B includes its browser AND actively prevents any other
browser running - hmmm.
Can you imagine if MS said Windows 7 would only run MS software?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Indeed. Google aren't the sort of people you'd think of doing a real
>> OS. From what the article says, this is a trivial Linux front-end.
>> (Indeed, I suspect it's probably going to consist of little beyond an
>> ordinary Linux distro with Chrome instead of a real desktop manager.)
>
> It's actually even more limited than their Android OS
...which I also haven't heard of...
> so there goes most of the Linux software right off the bat.
Indeed. It's supposed to be a "new OS".
> Not to mention, they'll do everything possible (from what I've read) to
> keep you from running any real applications other than the Chrome browser.
>
> It's an extremely specific OS, with one purpose only, and as such it
> will only be usable on Netbooks.
I think the idea is that if somebody buys a netbook for the sole purpose
of accessing the Internet, Google are going to make sure it's
ludicrously easy to access the Internet. Think about it: the more
limited the functionallity of a device, the easier it can potentially be
to use.
Think about all those games consoles out there; these are basically
normal "computers" which lack the ability to run anything but games. A
netbook is basically a single-function device in the first place.
>> This is aimed at netbooks; why would M$ care about that? It's not
>> where they make their money.
>
> MS is, I believe, selling XP licences for Netbooks for quite cheap.
> However, that's only a stopgap measure until W7 is released.
Sure, but they make their real money from desktops and servers, not
netbooks.
>> Looks to me like an excuse for somebody to write a news article. It
>> *is* a slightly odd more for Google though...
>
> So was releasing the Android OS, or the Chrome browser. If you look at
> what they're doing, though, they're slowly taking over every part of
> your life.
Not *my* life, buddy. ;-)
> First, they managed search for you. Then, it was email. Then driving
> directions. Then documents. Then calendars and schedules. Then chat.
> Now, with the Chrome browser, they handle your online interactions (I
> use it and, apart from a few minor squibbles, I quite like it). With
> the Chrome OS, they'll completely control your computer.
OK, let's examine that...
- Search. Everybody knows Google does search.
- Email. I've heard some people apparently use it, but I don't.
- Driving directions. Presumably you're talking about Google Maps and
Google Earth?
- Documents...?
- Calendars...?
- Chat...?!
Clearly I'm missing something...
> Google: Microsoft Done Right (tm).
Not really. Microsoft gains customers by illegally preventing choice.
Google does it by producing a superior product. The former is illegal,
the latter is the intent of any respectable business.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not really. Microsoft gains customers by illegally preventing choice.
> Google does it by producing a superior product. The former is illegal, the
> latter is the intent of any respectable business.
Err no, the intent of *any* business is to make money. Making a superior
product is just one way to do that, there are lots of opportunities to make
money without having the superior product (eg do you see low cost car
manufacturers trying to make their cars as high quality as really expensive
ones?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not really. Microsoft gains customers by illegally preventing choice.
>> Google does it by producing a superior product. The former is illegal,
>> the latter is the intent of any respectable business.
>
> Err no, the intent of *any* business is to make money.
Sure. But *respectable* business do this by legal means.
> Making a
> superior product is just one way to do that, there are lots of
> opportunities to make money without having the superior product.
Such as...?
[OK, *one* way is to make a product of the same quality and charge a lot
of money for it. Sometimes this makes a product more desirable -
depending on what it is, obviously...]
> (eg do
> you see low cost car manufacturers trying to make their cars as high
> quality as really expensive ones?).
No, but if you make a cheap car that's inferior to all the other cheap
cars, you're not going to make much money I suspect...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Err no, the intent of *any* business is to make money.
>
> Sure. But *respectable* business do this by legal means.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a large company that has not done
something illegal at some point. Sure, if a company secretly uses child
labour or uses some toxic chemical to save money then they lose my respect,
but if they decide, completely openly, that having a fine instead of sharing
code with competitors is going to be more profitable, that just seems like a
business decision to me.
>> Making a superior product is just one way to do that, there are lots of
>> opportunities to make money without having the superior product.
>
> Such as...?
Making an inferior product that you can sell for a lower price.
Building up a brand image so that you can charge more for the same quality
products.
Placing your selling points in better locations than your competitors.
Advertising more than your competitors.
Buying your competitors.
Providing better customer support than your competitors.
> No, but if you make a cheap car that's inferior to all the other cheap
> cars, you're not going to make much money I suspect...
So long as you can sell it a bit cheaper than the others you would be
surprised...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Making a superior product is just one way to do that, there are lots
>>> of opportunities to make money without having the superior product.
>>
>> Such as...?
>
> Making an inferior product that you can sell for a lower price.
> Building up a brand image so that you can charge more for the same
> quality products.
> Placing your selling points in better locations than your competitors.
> Advertising more than your competitors.
> Buying your competitors.
> Providing better customer support than your competitors.
All of those still constitute doing *something* "better". (Except buying
your competitors...) It may not be the product itself which is superior,
but there has to be something better.
Unless you illegally prevent other companies from competing, that is...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> All of those still constitute doing *something* "better". (Except buying
> your competitors...) It may not be the product itself which is superior,
> but there has to be something better.
Sure, I was just pointing out that your *product* doesn't necessarily have
to be superior for you to appear a "better" option to your customers.
> Unless you illegally prevent other companies from competing, that is...
What exactly has MS done that is illegal? It seems to me their "crimes" (in
the eyes of the EU) are not sharing enough source code with competitors,
including their browser software with their OS, and including a media player
with their OS. If that's the worst they've done, then sorry but they don't
lose my respect for that.
I assume that also if Google (or any other company) manages to get the
majority of the desktop OS market then they will also be deemed to be acting
illegally by including a browser, media player, minesweeper or whatever?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Unless you illegally prevent other companies from competing, that is...
I assume that if it's on top of some form of linux that there isn't really
any lock-in, other than MS stuff not being linux friendly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> What exactly has MS done that is illegal? It seems to me their "crimes"
> (in the eyes of the EU) are not sharing enough source code with
> competitors, including their browser software with their OS, and
> including a media player with their OS. If that's the worst they've
> done, then sorry but they don't lose my respect for that.
1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
7. Threatening highly dubious legal action just to put people out of
business.
I'm not sure how many of these are actually *illegal*, but they don't
command respect.
In summary, Microsoft's dominant market position exists because they
carefully and systematically prevent consumers from having any choice.
...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for a
product which isn't actually very good. :-P
> I assume that also if Google (or any other company) manages to get the
> majority of the desktop OS market then they will also be deemed to be
> acting illegally by including a browser, media player, minesweeper or
> whatever?
No idea.
Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a desktop OS...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm not sure how many of these are actually *illegal*, but they don't
> command respect.
AFAIK only #1 is illegal in most cases. The rest are all normal business
practices, but for some reason, probably because it's in the news a lot and
MS must be evil, people think it's wrong. Do you also think Coca-Cola is
wrong for banning pubs and restaurants from selling Pepsi? Or Ford for
banning its dealers from selling other cars? Or Walls for banning other
makes of ice-cream in its freezer units?
> In summary, Microsoft's dominant market position exists because they
> carefully and systematically prevent consumers from having any choice.
That doesn't make sense at all, to get to their dominant market position it
must have been because of something they did in the past, when people were
all going out to buy DOS or Windows 3.1 or whatever. I suspect it was just
because at the time they had the "best" product, Linux was probably too
complicated and Amigas and Macs were probably too expensive and inflexible
(hardware-wise). Don't blame MS that nobody could provide any decent
competition back then.
> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for a
> product which isn't actually very good. :-P
TBH, when you compare the complexity of Windows with other software, the
price seems perfectly acceptable to me, in fact it seems quite a bargain.
>> I assume that also if Google (or any other company) manages to get the
>> majority of the desktop OS market then they will also be deemed to be
>> acting illegally by including a browser, media player, minesweeper or
>> whatever?
>
> No idea.
I would hope so. And also I would hope that if the Windows market share
dropped, it would then be legal again for them to include a browser and
media player, and to cease having to share their secrets with competitors.
> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a desktop OS...
But they seem one of the most likely candidates at the moment to have any
significant impact on Windows sales...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
>
> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
>
> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
>
> 4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
>
> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
>
> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
>
> 7. Threatening highly dubious legal action just to put people out of
> business.
>
Yes, but apart from that what has M$ ever done that has caused your lack
of respect for them. :-D ;-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> The article states "Google is going for Microsoft's financial jugular
> with this move". Erm, no, not really, no. This is aimed at netbooks; why
> would M$ care about that? It's not where they make their money. Perhaps
> it's where they might *like* to make money some day, but currently every
> single netbook I've seen is running Linux anyway. (Unsurprising, given
> that the whole point of a netbook is to be as cheap and nasty as
> possible, and Linux is free...)
>
Perhaps six months ago, I stumbled across one Linux netbook in a Best Buy, and
the sales clerk was telling folks not to get it. Recently, I've scoured all
the electronics stores in two different cities. I have not even seen a single
netbook with Linux.
I think KDE4, which ruins user's experience expectations, may have been designed
for ultra-low processor power netbooks, but will probably do more to scare
people away from Linux outright.
Google to the rescue...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Perhaps six months ago, I stumbled across one Linux netbook in a Best Buy, and
> the sales clerk was telling folks not to get it. Recently, I've scoured all
> the electronics stores in two different cities. I have not even seen a single
> netbook with Linux.
Really? Interesting... I have yet to see a single netbook that doesn't
come with Linux.
> I think KDE4, which ruins user's experience expectations, may have been designed
> for ultra-low processor power netbooks, but will probably do more to scare
> people away from Linux outright.
>
> Google to the rescue...
Heh, well, we'll see... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Do you also
> think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants from selling
> Pepsi?
Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
> Or Ford for banning its dealers from selling other cars?
That's not quite the same thing.
Windows is slightly unusual in that it's a product that goes with
another product (but the other product is useless without it - or some
other manufacturer's equivilent). The only analogy I can come up with is
Goodyear ordering Ford not to sell cars that have tires that aren't
Goodyear, and then trying to ban the sale of cars without tires.
[Admittedly, a rather lame analogy.]
>> In summary, Microsoft's dominant market position exists because they
>> carefully and systematically prevent consumers from having any choice.
>
> That doesn't make sense at all, to get to their dominant market position
> it must have been because of something they did in the past, when people
> were all going out to buy DOS or Windows 3.1 or whatever.
According to the history books, the story goes that IBM wanted an OS,
Gate's mum knew somebody at IBM, so Gates stole an OS off one of his
mates and made it work on the IBM PC. IBM PCs became popular for some
reason, and the rest is history.
> I suspect it
> was just because at the time they had the "best" product, Linux was
> probably too complicated and Amigas and Macs were probably too expensive
> and inflexible (hardware-wise). Don't blame MS that nobody could
> provide any decent competition back then.
I doubt that was the reason.
>> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for
>> a product which isn't actually very good. :-P
>
> TBH, when you compare the complexity of Windows with other software, the
> price seems perfectly acceptable to me, in fact it seems quite a bargain.
I wasn't referring only to Windows; M$ make other products as well.
(Most notably Office, but also things like VisualStudio, IIS, Exchange,
SQL Server, etc.) Other people manage to make similar products which
work significantly better, and for a fraction of the money that M$ has
available for investment. It's just that for M$, it's cheaper to cheat
the system than to design a better product.
> I would hope so. And also I would hope that if the Windows market share
> dropped, it would then be legal again for them to include a browser and
> media player, and to cease having to share their secrets with competitors.
It's news to me that Microsoft does have to share their secrets.
>> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a desktop OS...
>
> But they seem one of the most likely candidates at the moment to have
> any significant impact on Windows sales...
Sure. The only other possibility I see is Apple, and they won't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 07:08, Invisible wrote:
>> Do you also think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants
>> from selling Pepsi?
>
> Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
Both Pepsi and Coca Cola do this in the US. They offer a nice rate if
the business signs an exclusive contract. It really, really sucks.
--
Hangover: The wrath of grapes.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4a55db29$1@news.povray.org...
> Really? Interesting... I have yet to see a single netbook that doesn't
> come with Linux.
Look harder then...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-308158.html
The Linux netbook for the masses seems mostly DOA. Of course MS could
completely bork the release of Windows 7 "netbook edition" but even then...
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Do you also think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants
>>> from selling Pepsi?
>>
>> Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
>
> Both Pepsi and Coca Cola do this in the US. They offer a nice rate
> if the business signs an exclusive contract. It really, really sucks.
They offer a nice rate if the business signs an exclusive contract? Or
they won't sell to the business at all if they don't sign an exclusive
contract?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Really? Interesting... I have yet to see a single netbook that doesn't
>> come with Linux.
>
> Look harder then...
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-308158.html
> The Linux netbook for the masses seems mostly DOA. Of course MS could
> completely bork the release of Windows 7 "netbook edition" but even then...
Well, bareing in mind that I'm not really interested in netbooks myself,
I haven't been paying too much attention. However, every shop I go into
that actually sells them, has only Linux on offer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Windows is slightly unusual in that it's a product that goes with another
> product (but the other product is useless without it - or some other
> manufacturer's equivilent). The only analogy I can come up with is
> Goodyear ordering Ford not to sell cars that have tires that aren't
> Goodyear,
No, the analogy would be that Goodyear says to Ford that it will charge
double for tyres if it sells any cars without Goodyear tyres. Yes that
already happens in other business areas (ok not usually double the price).
> According to the history books, the story goes that IBM wanted an OS,
> Gate's mum knew somebody at IBM, so Gates stole an OS off one of his mates
Hehe, I think you'll find he *bought* it, from someone who would end up
working at MS anyway (developing the OS, one would assume):
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm
> It's news to me that Microsoft does have to share their secrets.
The latest EU ruling said they had to share source code and protocol
specifications for their server networking stuff. The massive fines they
were getting on a daily basis were because they had failed to do this
(originally they just provided the source code to competitors, but
apparently this was not enough).
> Sure. The only other possibility I see is Apple, and they won't.
Of course, because if Apple sold their OS to work on generic hardware nobody
would buy Apple hardware :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Can you imagine if MS said Windows 7 would only run MS software?
Can you imagine if MS said XBox would only run MS-approved software?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Not really. Microsoft gains customers by illegally preventing choice.
You are once again being confused about who Microsoft's customers are.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Sure. But *respectable* business do this by legal means.
If you're talking about the anti-trust things, one thing to remember is that
in the US, you can lose an anti-trust lawsuit even if you're *not* doing
anything anti-competitive. If you just happen to have such a good product
that nobody buys the competitor's, you can get sued and lose.
The rules on what you are and are not allowed to do are very vague and very
easy to get caught up in.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I'm not sure how many of these are actually *illegal*, but they don't
>> command respect.
>
> AFAIK only #1 is illegal in most cases.
It's also not what they did. They simply offered a better price on the OS if
the company included the OS with every machine they sold. If the company
didn't want to do that, they could buy the OS on a per-unit basis, which
many small companies indeed did.
It's like accusing them of illegal actions because they offer site licenses.
Obviously a little more complex, but hard to say actually immoral. It's not
like there was a lot of choice at the time, even.
> was just because at the time they had the "best" product,
Name an OS that ran on the original IBM-PC that wasn't PC-DOS. Can you name
one that wasn't just an attempted clone of PC-DOS?
Name an OS that ran on a x86 competitive with Windows 3.x? OS/2? Sure. Name
another. Was OS/2 better than Win3 in any way that a business user would care?
> Linux was probably too complicated
Windows wasn't out before MS had a monopoly on desktop OSes. The fact that
MS actually had a monopoly is what made hardware ubiquitous enough to let
Linux grow into something useful. You'd never have written a free popular OS
in the days when you had Apple ][, Atari ST, Amiga, Atari 800, TRS-80 I, II,
and III, etc etc etc out the wazoo. Only after MS already was popular enough
that people were building hardware to run Windows rather than vice versa was
there enough of a hardware base that something like Linux 0.01 could get any
traction.
>> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for
>> a product which isn't actually very good. :-P
>
> TBH, when you compare the complexity of Windows with other software, the
> price seems perfectly acceptable to me, in fact it seems quite a bargain.
I think if you were to actually go head-to-head between what Linux offers
and what Windows offers, you'd find Windows offers a lot more. The
difference is, to get the system where you just put the install CD in the
administrator's drive and it goes and installs it on everyone's laptop next
time they dial in without disturbing them, you need to pay a lot of money
and learn how to use it. But the functionality is there.
>> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a desktop OS...
>
> But they seem one of the most likely candidates at the moment to have
> any significant impact on Windows sales...
They're still not going to have a desktop OS or a netbook OS. It's Linux,
running Chrome.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> According to the history books, the story goes that IBM wanted an OS,
> Gate's mum knew somebody at IBM, so Gates stole an OS off one of his
> mates and made it work on the IBM PC. IBM PCs became popular for some
> reason, and the rest is history.
I think you have a rather twisted telling of that story there. :-)
>> nobody could provide any decent competition back then.
>
> I doubt that was the reason.
Name two competitors. Were you even in the market at the time it was hashing
out?
> I wasn't referring only to Windows; M$ make other products as well.
> (Most notably Office, but also things like VisualStudio, IIS, Exchange,
> SQL Server, etc.) Other people manage to make similar products which
> work significantly better,
Do they? What works better than Exchange?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> They offer a nice rate if the business signs an exclusive contract? Or
> they won't sell to the business at all if they don't sign an exclusive
> contract?
Nothing stops the business from going somewhere else, buying the stuff, and
reselling it. There are lots of small shops that would build you a computer
to spec and then buy a copy of Windows and install it for you.
MS just gave better rates to those who would do the install themselves. Part
of it was you could look at how many computers were sold and just bill for
OSes based on that. MS didn't have to take the word of the OEM about how
many machines were sold with Windows and how many machines were sold without.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 08:02, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Do you also think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants
>>>> from selling Pepsi?
>>>
>>> Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
>>
>> Both Pepsi and Coca Cola do this in the US. They offer a nice rate if
>> the business signs an exclusive contract. It really, really sucks.
>
> They offer a nice rate if the business signs an exclusive contract? Or
> they won't sell to the business at all if they don't sign an exclusive
> contract?
Well, they can always do the latter in a roundabout way: By charging 50
times more if they don't sign an exclusive contract. I really don't know
if they do that, though.
This is common in university campuses here:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/03/audit-questions-rod-blagojevichs-no-coke-pepsi-contract.html
http://www.vpaf.uni.edu/obo/pepsifaqs.shtml
--
Hangover: The wrath of grapes.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> But they should call it Linux if they really base it on Linux
I don't think using the linux kernel requires for the OS to have the
word "linux" in its name.
MacOS X has a BSD variant named Darwin as kernel, but the OS is still
not named "Darwin".
In the modern world it would be just plain silly to try to write a
completely new OS from scratch, at least not for desktop computers. If
you make it incompatible with all existing software, nobody would use it.
Thus you just have to make it compatible. The only software you can
rationally make a new OS compatible with is Unix software (because of
all the existing open source resources to do that, something you just
don't have for the two biggest proprietary operating systems). Thus the
only rational choice is to make the OS Unix-based. But why go through
the trouble of creating one from scratch when there are tons of existing,
open source ones, which have decades of development experience poured
into them?
There would be basically only three possible choices for the kernel:
Linux, NetBSD (or maybe one of the others) or Solaris. Since Linux is
by far the most popular one, and it has good hardware support, it seems
like the rational choice.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hmm, so company A includes its browser in its OS and gets fined and told
> to remove it. Company B includes its browser AND actively prevents any
> other browser running - hmmm.
>
> Can you imagine if MS said Windows 7 would only run MS software?
I think Google can get away with it for two reasons:
1) Nobody is claiming that Google has a monopoly position, or that they
are abusing that position in order to stifle competition.
2) Nobody is claiming that Chrome OS will be suitable for the masses,
but instead it is targeted at a very specific market segment, viz,
netbooks. Netbooks themselves are ideal for running Web applications
and little else, so it actually makes sense there.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
I've only read of two instances where this was actually proven. In the
first case, it wasn't actually illegal due to poor wording in the
license that MS signed with Apple, in the second case it was open code
to begin with (the network stack from FreeBSD, I believe).
> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS
extensions.
> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
They didn't force anybody. They signed agreements with manufacturers,
and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.
> 4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
Name me a big business that doesn't lobby the Government for stuff that
will benefit them. Not only is lobbying legal, but even encouraged by
our system.
> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
Wait, do you criticize Linus Torvalds for trying to put MS out of
business by giving Linux away for free? And what's the difference
between MS selling a better product (and so putting other companies out
of business) and MS selling a product for less (or even free) (and so
putting other companies out of business)?
> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
Sure, they announced it, but you can be assured that if they thought
they could make money by selling a particular piece of software they
would have made it. The fact that it ended up being cancelled means
they didn't think it would be profitable.
Or would you rather force business to stick with out-of-date plans that
they know will lose them money, just so they can claim "We stuck with a
losing plan for 10 years straight?"
> 7. Threatening highly dubious legal action just to put people out of
> business.
Again, MS is far from alone in doing this.
It sounds like your problem isn't with MS in particular, but with big
business in general.
> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for a
> product which isn't actually very good. :-P
Nobody's forcing you to use it. Why don't you use Linux instead?
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> It's actually even more limited than their Android OS
>
> ...which I also haven't heard of...
It an OS for cell-phones (and also Linux based). Currently, it's only
used on the G1, though another one is supposed to come out soon.
Some companies have discussed using it on Netbooks.
As I understand it, however, Chrome OS will not support Java (only JS),
while Android does support Java.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
>
> I've only read of two instances where this was actually proven. In the
> first case, it wasn't actually illegal due to poor wording in the
> license that MS signed with Apple, in the second case it was open code
> to begin with (the network stack from FreeBSD, I believe).
That second one wouldn't be illegal anyway. So it isn't stealing, any more
than installing Linux is stealing.
They did violate a patent or two, and got appropriately slapped, but that
happens all the time in business.
>> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
>
> That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS
> extensions.
The only one of these I heard of ever being a problem was the Kerberos
and/or DHCP standards (I forget which), wherein MS put some important stuff
into the area reserved for vendor extensions, which is kind of hard to argue
against unless you're fanatical to begin with. What other standards have
they done this with.
>> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
>
> They didn't force anybody. They signed agreements with manufacturers,
> and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.
They gave a price break if the vendor would do the duplication and install
themselves, basically.
>> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
>
> Wait, do you criticize Linus Torvalds for trying to put MS out of
> business by giving Linux away for free? And what's the difference
> between MS selling a better product (and so putting other companies out
> of business) and MS selling a product for less (or even free) (and so
> putting other companies out of business)?
What I haven't figured out is the huge number of people screaming at
Microsoft for bundling programs with Windows that competes with programs
they give away for free. Say what?
>> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
>
> Sure, they announced it, but you can be assured that if they thought
> they could make money by selling a particular piece of software they
> would have made it. The fact that it ended up being cancelled means
> they didn't think it would be profitable.
Or that they thought it would, but then found out they were wrong.
> Or would you rather force business to stick with out-of-date plans that
> they know will lose them money, just so they can claim "We stuck with a
> losing plan for 10 years straight?"
Duke Nukem Forever!
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/748-Duke-Nukem-Forever
>> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for
>> a product which isn't actually very good. :-P
>
> Nobody's forcing you to use it. Why don't you use Linux instead?
Oh, please tell me a computer product that *doesn't* suck moose? I could
really use hearing of something that's actually good. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 20:41, Chambers wrote:
> I think Google can get away with it for two reasons:
> 1) Nobody is claiming that Google has a monopoly position, or that they
> are abusing that position in order to stifle competition.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUS422108559020090706
http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS104837430520090624
A number of groups have raised a fuss about their book deal. Not sure
if they explicitly used the word "monopoly", but it's fairly questionable.
--
Conscious is when you are aware of something and conscience is when you
wish you weren't.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 21:19, Darren New wrote:
> Oh, please tell me a computer product that *doesn't* suck moose? I could
> really use hearing of something that's actually good. :-)
Fractint on DOS. Can't think of a single criticism. Awesome program.
Midnight Commander on Linux. I _can_ complain about a few things it
does poorly compared to Norton Commander, but on the whole, it's still
good enough to be Awesome.
People keep going on and on about grep. Should learn it properly one day...
But I'm sure that's not what you really wanted when you asked.<G>
--
Conscious is when you are aware of something and conscience is when you
wish you weren't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> According to the history books, the story goes that IBM wanted an OS,
>> Gate's mum knew somebody at IBM, so Gates stole an OS off one of his
>> mates and made it work on the IBM PC. IBM PCs became popular for some
>> reason, and the rest is history.
>
> I think you have a rather twisted telling of that story there. :-)
Microsoft's entire history seems to revolve around stealing other
people's stuff and watching them go bankrupt faster than they can sue.
>>> nobody could provide any decent competition back then.
>>
>> I doubt that was the reason.
>
> Name two competitors. Were you even in the market at the time it was
> hashing out?
When the hell was the IBM PC invented anyway?
>> I wasn't referring only to Windows; M$ make other products as well.
>> (Most notably Office, but also things like VisualStudio, IIS,
>> Exchange, SQL Server, etc.) Other people manage to make similar
>> products which work significantly better,
>
> Do they? What works better than Exchange?
Actually... I'm not aware of anything else that does what Exchange does.
Which is a little bit odd, really.
I know of a few office suites that manage to not constantly crash like
MS Office does. Apache is notable for doing the same thing as IIS while
being actually secure and less of a resource hog. (I will admit it's a
PITA to configure though...) There are lots of database engines out
there; I doubt many of them are worse than SQL Server.
I've yet to see an IDE that isn't horribly slow, bloated and inflexible.
I guess in that respect VS is no worse than any other IDE.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>> But they should call it Linux if they really base it on Linux
>
> I don't think using the linux kernel requires for the OS to have the
> word "linux" in its name.
As far as I can tell, if you want to be technical about it, "Linux" is
the tiny bit of code that runs tasks, handles interrupts, manages memory
and has a few device drivers. When you install "Linux", 90% of the stuff
you're installing isn't actually "Linux" at all; it's mostly the GNU
toolchain, GNOME or KDE, Firefox and half a million other 3rd party items.
Apparently some people insist on calling it "GNU/Linux". Like *that's*
going to happen...
Whatever happened to HURD?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've yet to see an IDE that isn't horribly slow, bloated and inflexible. I
> guess in that respect VS is no worse than any other IDE.
Maybe it's your computer then? :-)
VS works perfectly fast enough here thank you... exactly how can an IDE be
horribly slow? You mean when compiling or starting up or what?
I have Visual C++ 2008 Express here and a moderately complex program (about
1MB of code in 50 source files using lots of DirectX headers and libraries
and the Newton Game Dynamics physics library).
Time to open VC++: ~1s
Time to open project: ~1.5s
Time to compile from scratch: ~10s
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've yet to see an IDE that isn't horribly slow, bloated and
>> inflexible. I guess in that respect VS is no worse than any other IDE.
>
> Maybe it's your computer then? :-)
>
> VS works perfectly fast enough here thank you... exactly how can an IDE
> be horribly slow? You mean when compiling or starting up or what?
At uni, we used both Borland JBuilder and VisualStudio J++. Both of them
were ludicrously slow. Stuff like
- Start the program: 45 seconds.
- Wait for autocomplete to appear: 20 seconds.
- Compile something: 30 seconds.
Both also had a nasty habit of the metadata not matching the source
code. Like, open a file, add a new method, and VS seems not to "know
about it" until you close and reopen VS. (You'd hope that just saving
the file would be enough. No. Maybe just compiling it then? No.)
If you decide you want to rename a class... forget it. This confuses VS
beyond belief. Trying to add source files that weren't created using VS
is near impossible. Then VS insists on trying to incorrectly format your
code (e.g., put the open bracket on the same line as the method
declaration, rather than the line below it).
Trying to tell it which file is the runnable program is unecessarily
difficult. You had to jump through hoops to make it create an empty
project rather than a project already stuffed with boilerplate code you
don't need or want.
Basically, every single aspect of it was annoying, inflexible and
overcomplicated.
I will say one thing though: It did manage to compile recursive classes,
which Sun's JDK could only do with special trickery.
I imagine on today's computers it's probably not quite so slow, but I
doubt it's become any less inflexible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
>>
>> That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS
>> extensions.
>
> The only one of these I heard of ever being a problem was the Kerberos
> and/or DHCP standards (I forget which), wherein MS put some important
> stuff into the area reserved for vendor extensions, which is kind of
> hard to argue against unless you're fanatical to begin with.
I'm pretty sure that one was Kerberos. And the point was they made it so
their Kerberos implementation wouldn't work with anybody else's. The
idea is "if this doesn't work with other compliant Kerberos
implementations, you can't really call it Kerberos". A bit like if you
made an SMTP server and an SMTP client that work with each other but not
any other product on the market; can you really call that SMTP?
If they'd put extra information in but their implementation had still
worked with other people's, it wouldn't be such a big deal. (It still
leaves the issue of these fields being reversed for future use, and when
the next standard decides to use them, it'll break the M$ implementation...)
> What other standards have they done this with.
*cough* The web?
> What I haven't figured out is the huge number of people screaming at
> Microsoft for bundling programs with Windows that competes with programs
> they give away for free. Say what?
Before Internet Explorer, web browsers used to cost money. After IE, it
was basically impossible to sell them for money. Why would anyone pay
money for something that they can get for free anyway?
So yeah, the products they give away for free compete with other
products which are free *now*... because you can't sell them for money
any more.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
>
> I've only read of two instances where this was actually proven. In the
> first case, it wasn't actually illegal due to poor wording in the
> license that MS signed with Apple, in the second case it was open code
> to begin with (the network stack from FreeBSD, I believe).
From what I heard, Internet Explorer was stolen from a company called
Spyglass.
Spyglass were selling a web browser, M$ licenced the code from them,
developed IE, and then gave it away for free (in violation of the terms
of the licence with Spyglass). Spyglass promptly went bankrupt before
they could sue M$.
A similar story happened at the beginning of the Microsoft story, but
since I don't recall the precise facts right now I'll leave that one.
>> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
>
> That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS
> extensions.
Sure, nobody forces web developers to use IE-specific extensions. Yet
90% of all websites work properly only if you use IE. (And the others
only work properly in other browsers because the makers have spent years
reverse-engineering IE's incorrect behaviour rather than implementing
the approved standards.)
>> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
>
> They didn't force anybody. They signed agreements with manufacturers,
> and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.
The way I heard it, it was more like "you will agree to these terms or
you can't have our product".
>> 4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
>
> Name me a big business that doesn't lobby the Government for stuff that
> will benefit them. Not only is lobbying legal, but even encouraged by
> our system.
Yeah, well, when car manufacturers lobby the government saying "people
aren't buying as many cars as they used to; I think we should get
government subsidies", people just laugh and say "no". When Microsoft
lobbies for something, people seem to think they have a point.
>> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
>
> Wait, do you criticize Linus Torvalds for trying to put MS out of
> business by giving Linux away for free? And what's the difference
> between MS selling a better product (and so putting other companies out
> of business) and MS selling a product for less (or even free) (and so
> putting other companies out of business)?
Microsoft made their money from Windows. They can afford to give
products away with it for free. People who's entire business is selling
those other products can't do this. It's using sales from one product to
pay for another product; last time I checked, that's not legal.
Like, if Tesco decided to start giving away a free bestselling book with
every purchase, they'd have a problem because they'd be using grocery
sales to put book sellers out of business.
>> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
>
> Sure, they announced it, but you can be assured that if they thought
> they could make money by selling a particular piece of software they
> would have made it. The fact that it ended up being cancelled means
> they didn't think it would be profitable.
Well, that's fair enough. But when a business announces something they
have no intention of making just for the financial effect it will have
on a potential competetor... that's not really fair.
> It sounds like your problem isn't with MS in particular, but with big
> business in general.
I just dislike the way M$ wins by cheating all the time.
Oracle is a big corporation too, but I have nothing against them. Their
product is extremely expensive, but it's also high-quality and resonably
well documented. Oracle didn't get to be where they are now by stealing
other people's stuff, lying to the government or trying to trick their
users. They did it by producing a good product.
> Nobody's forcing you to use it.
I'm sure this one has been argued to death. While *technically* this is
true, the reality is that M$ has carefully engineered a situation where
little viable alternative actually exists. (Let's face it, if somebody
else was producing decent software, M$ would go under fairly quickly.)
> Why don't you use Linux instead?
Sure. Except that the vast majority of the software I want to use won't
work with Linux.
Besides, much as I'd *like* Linux to be the answer... it isn't. It's
still too old and crufty and messy for my liking. But hey, who's going
to produce anything better?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At uni, we used both Borland JBuilder and VisualStudio J++. Both of them
> were ludicrously slow. Stuff like
>
> - Start the program: 45 seconds.
> - Wait for autocomplete to appear: 20 seconds.
So the computer was to blame then? I used Borland C++ Builder (I got it free
on a magazine cover disk) extensively at colleg and Uni on my moderate home
PC and it ran fine, nothing like you mention above.
> If you decide you want to rename a class... forget it. This confuses VS
> beyond belief.
Did you try to do it manually, or use the Rename command? If you tried to
do it manually then I can understand things going wrong.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6kxxabwd.aspx
> Trying to add source files that weren't created using VS is near
> impossible.
Ermm, Project -> Add Existing Item works perfectly every time for me. What
went wrong?
> Then VS insists on trying to incorrectly format your code (e.g., put the
> open bracket on the same line as the method declaration, rather than the
> line below it).
You can do either, and you can choose whether it will indent the brackets or
not if you put them on their own line.
> Trying to tell it which file is the runnable program is unecessarily
> difficult.
I've never made any multi-file projects, but I would be very surprised if
you couldn't set what is run. And even if you couldn't you just add a
post-build event to run the executable you want.
> You had to jump through hoops to make it create an empty project rather
> than a project already stuffed with boilerplate code you don't need or
> want.
Sounds to me like someone just didn't know how to do it the correct way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> At uni, we used both Borland JBuilder and VisualStudio J++. Both of
>> them were ludicrously slow. Stuff like
>>
>> - Start the program: 45 seconds.
>> - Wait for autocomplete to appear: 20 seconds.
>
> So the computer was to blame then? I used Borland C++ Builder (I got it
> free on a magazine cover disk) extensively at colleg and Uni on my
> moderate home PC and it ran fine, nothing like you mention above.
Well, all the other programs seemed to run just fine. (E.g., starting up
Word didn't take very long.) I will admit Netscape Navigator always
seemed to take a long time to start - but it would *run* just fine, it
just took a while to start.
>> If you decide you want to rename a class... forget it. This confuses
>> VS beyond belief.
>
> Did you try to do it manually, or use the Rename command? If you tried
> to do it manually then I can understand things going wrong.
IIRC, I used the rename option in VS.
>> Trying to add source files that weren't created using VS is near
>> impossible.
>
> Ermm, Project -> Add Existing Item works perfectly every time for me.
> What went wrong?
Well, first of all, you have to find the project folder on the harddrive
and dig twenty-five million subfolders down into it to find where the
actual source code is stored. Then you copy the files there. Then you
spend half an hour trying to figure out how to make VS realise the files
exist. And, if you're lucky, it works.
(Recall that Java isn't like C; the source files have to have particular
names, and have to be located in particular folders, and so on.)
>> Then VS insists on trying to incorrectly format your code (e.g., put
>> the open bracket on the same line as the method declaration, rather
>> than the line below it).
>
> You can do either, and you can choose whether it will indent the
> brackets or not if you put them on their own line.
I seem to recall spending a long time tweaking the "style" settings of
the code editor, and I never did get it to work correctly. In the end I
had to spend lots of time undoing all the autoformatting the editor put
in just because I couldn't figure out which exact combination of
settings makes it lay out the code correctly to start with.
>> Trying to tell it which file is the runnable program is unecessarily
>> difficult.
>
> I've never made any multi-file projects, but I would be very surprised
> if you couldn't set what is run. And even if you couldn't you just add
> a post-build event to run the executable you want.
Oh, you could set it, it was just unecessarily difficult to do.
(As I stated above, Java *requires* all nontrivial programs to be in
multiple source files.)
>> You had to jump through hoops to make it create an empty project
>> rather than a project already stuffed with boilerplate code you don't
>> need or want.
>
> Sounds to me like someone just didn't know how to do it the correct way.
Well, it's not like anybody showed us how to use the software...
As far as I could tell, the only thing that VS gives you that Notepad
doesn't have is the ability to press a button and have it compile
everything. Sure, it also had that autocomplete thing, but honestly, it
seemed to get in the way more than actually help. (Aside from being very
slow and constantly out of date anyway.) You either had to take your
hand off the keyboard to use the mouse to click the item you wanted, or
you could select the item with the keyboard and hit return - but then it
inserted a return into the source. >_<
It did also have a little tree view showing you what files are in your
project, and one below it showing you the properties of the current
class - methods, fields, etc. But that seemed to be permanently out of
date. A nice little feature, but not especially useful.
In summary, I did most of my work with Notepad. It's so much easier to
get the job done.
Who knows? Perhaps in the 7 years since then, VS has become actually
useful in some way. But I doubt it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Before Internet Explorer, web browsers used to cost money. After IE, it
> was basically impossible to sell them for money. Why would anyone pay
> money for something that they can get for free anyway?
>
> So yeah, the products they give away for free compete with other products
> which are free *now*... because you can't sell them for money any more.
Of course you can if your product is more attractive for customers to want
to pay for it. Linux is free, people still buy Windows. OpenOffice is
free, people still buy MS Office. Blender and Wings are free, people still
buy 3D Studio. The GIMP is free, people still buy Paintshop. I'm sure you
can think of many more examples.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Of course you can if your product is more attractive for customers to
> want to pay for it.
It's difficult to see how you could make a web browser more attractive
to the casual user than IE already is - at least, enough to make them
reach into their pockets anyway...
> Linux is free, people still buy Windows.
Some people even buy Linux, oddly enough...
> OpenOffice is free, people still buy MS Office.
A better comparison might be "people still be StarOffice". Except that
I've never heard of anybody doing that.
> Blender and Wings are
> free, people still buy 3D Studio. The GIMP is free, people still buy
> Paintshop. I'm sure you can think of many more examples.
If I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that I've never met anybody
who owns a copy of 3D Studio or Paintshop *legally*. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> From what I heard, Internet Explorer was stolen from a company called
> Spyglass.
>
> Spyglass were selling a web browser, M$ licenced the code from them,
> developed IE, and then gave it away for free (in violation of the terms of
> the licence with Spyglass). Spyglass promptly went bankrupt before they
> could sue M$.
Oh joy, another one of your completely made-up stories bashing MS :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.
> A similar story happened at the beginning of the Microsoft story, but
> since I don't recall the precise facts right now I'll leave that one.
Yeh, if you are even admitting to not recalling the precise facts this time
then perhaps best not to :-)
> The way I heard it, it was more like "you will agree to these terms or you
> can't have our product".
That's impossible, because as pointed out you can just go to a normal shop
and buy it if you can't get it directly from MS. The worst MS could do was
"you will agree to these terms or you will have to buy it at the normal
price the public pays for it".
> Yeah, well, when car manufacturers lobby the government saying "people
> aren't buying as many cars as they used to; I think we should get
> government subsidies", people just laugh and say "no".
Or offer 2000 GBP for your old cars if you buy a new one :-)
> Like, if Tesco decided to start giving away a free bestselling book with
> every purchase, they'd have a problem because they'd be using grocery
> sales to put book sellers out of business.
That's not illegal. In fact it's common practise for supermarkets to use
"loss leaders" like petrol and milk/sugar that actually lose them money, to
encourage people to come in and spend on the more profitable items. What
*is* illegal is if the manufacturer tries to tell Tesco what price they
should sell at.
> Well, that's fair enough. But when a business announces something they
> have no intention of making just for the financial effect it will have on
> a potential competetor... that's not really fair.
Charities are for being fair, businesses are for making money and crushing
the competition.
> Oracle is a big corporation too, but I have nothing against them. Their
> product is extremely expensive, but it's also high-quality and resonably
> well documented. Oracle didn't get to be where they are now by stealing
> other people's stuff,
Oh really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Oracle
and you should read this:
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,39048963,00.htm
As I said, pretty much any large company is going to have done some "unfair"
things, otherwise they wouldn't have grown to be a large company.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (Recall that Java isn't like C; the source files have to have particular
> names, and have to be located in particular folders, and so on.)
As so the IDE is not really to blame then if you haven't followed the Java
rules exactly.
> Well, it's not like anybody showed us how to use the software...
LOL. Reminds me of when you said that 3D Studio was rubbish, but it turns
out you were just guessing how to use it and got stuck (surprise surprise!).
> Who knows? Perhaps in the 7 years since then, VS has become actually
> useful in some way. But I doubt it...
Yeh I doubt it too, I guess all those companies than spend tens of thousands
of dollars on VS licenses are just doing it for fun. I guess all their
employees are secretly using notepad...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
